This blog post is about the documentary “grammar revolution” who presents two
types of grammar, descriptive and prescriptive grammar. Linguists use grammar
to refer to the rules that make up our subconscious systems. The other group,
most people refer to grammar as the rules of a particular way of speaking and
writing English. Linguists have the knowledge to describe these subconscious
rules, while most people just want to follow prescribed rules.
Moving away from explicit grammar teaching began with
changing the teacher’s role in the classroom. Teaching went from traditional to
progressive. In “grammar revolution” they give arguments both for and against
explicit grammar teaching. The ones arguing against explicit grammar teaching believe
that it can hurt the student’s self-esteem. The people for grammar teaching are
using the same argument, but in a different way. They believe it is good for
the students to learn explicit grammar, and that correcting them when they are
wrong, will give them even better self-esteem when they succeed. This because
they now are more conscious about how hard they have tried to make it right. Another
argument for the grammar teaching is that it is valuable for the students to
know witch tools they are using to make a correct sentence. If students know
the tools, and that what they are doing are correct, it will make the writing a
lot easier. And it will also help them get a vocabulary for talking about
language.
My own experience is that I have always struggled working
with grammar, and I had to use a lot of time on it. Most of the time it ended
up being drilling the day before I had a test, and right after it the knowledge
would be gone again. If this were how the grammar teaching would turn out to
be, I don’t know if it is something I would choose to use time on for my
students. But if I am able to change the grammar teaching to be more meaningful
for the students, and help them achieve metalinguistic awareness instead of
just memorizing the rules I would be more positive for it. This because when
students achieve metalinguistic awareness they do not only know the rules
behind the language, they know why we have them and how we can use them. It
could be the same in learning English.
It's really interesting to see that you would go away from the drilling part of grammar, and instead focus on the metalingustic awareness. I like the point you make about us as teachers can teach grammar in a more meaningful way for the students instead of just drilling the rules.
SvarSlettHi Heidi. It was interesting to read about your own experience with grammar instruction, and that you want to make grammar instruction more meaningful for your own future students. I also think that its important with metalinguist awareness and the usage of the language.
SvarSlettI like that you express how your own experience with grammar instruction has been, and that's you use those experiences when arguing for how you think grammar instruction should not be.
SvarSlettHi Alida. I like that you mention the different arguments both for and against teaching explicit grammar, grammar can be both tough on motivation and self-esteem. The teacher really have to assess their pupils, and teach them in a manner that improves the pupil’s self-esteem and motivation. I think taking in count each pupil’s ambitions can be helpful in judging how you should teach grammar.
SvarSlettI think you´ve made a very good point about the difficulties with learning grammar in an isolated, drilling-focused context. Many learners make the same point about forgetting every grammar point they learn after the class or exam if they don´t have the opportunity to use it in real language situations. I guess most of us would agree that knowing the grammar is certainly beneficial for many reasons, including developing meta-linguistic awareness that helps learning a language, as you have mentioned. The question then is how we can teach grammar more effectively and in a more meaningful context. Something we are going to discuss next week. :)
SvarSlett